If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#591
|
|||
|
|||
why wet prints > 300 dpi MF costs more cuz its much better
On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 17:07:34 -0500, one_of_many wrote:
In article , Elemental wrote: A print that is 300dpi in is at most 300dpi out, regardless of the ppi output of the printer. By going to 1440 ppi output, you give the printer more room to do its dithering, and thereby produce a print that is closer to 300 dpi in output resolution (at 1440 ppi printing output, say). Your confidence in the downsampling built into the printers firmware is rather optomistic. 1440 - 300 is just too much, IMHO. You are confused, or perhaps my writing is not 2x4-in-the-head clear. There is no downsampling involved here. To re-iterate, the image is 300dpi in. The resulting print is 300dpi out. The 1440 ppi output of the printer has no effect on this. The image does not become a 1440 dpi print just because the printer is putting 1440 ppi dots on the paper. Is this clearer? |
#592
|
|||
|
|||
MF scanner upscaling? MF future? ideal cameras?
On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 00:35:38 -0400, Stacey wrote:
The "problem" with the vega 120 isn't the resolution (which it performs quite well), it's the bokeh. About as ugly as I've ever seen from any short tele lens! IMHO the 80mm arsat with a 1.4X converter is a much better option and cheaper. The 120mm biometar outperforms either. Yes, if bokeh is more important for you than resolution and contrast; I think it really depends of the type of photography one prefers. I shoot mainly architecturals, and for me the superior (I'd say "impressive") resolution and contrast of the Vega are more important than bokeh; but of course for portraits, certain type of landscapes, wildlife and the likes, a good bokeh is much more important than resolving power. This is the nice thing about having both the Vega 120 MC and the Arsat 80 MC + 1.4x MC teleconverter! And, they're so cheap! :-D Fernando |
#593
|
|||
|
|||
why wet prints > 300 dpi MF costs more cuz its much better
Recently, Bill Hilton posted:
From: Elemental lid A print that is 300dpi in is at most 300dpi out, regardless of the ppi output of the printer. You are confusing the input file resolution (which is *not* dpi, it's ppi) with the printer's output resolution. They are two different things. Yes, and no (your're right that the image is more appropriately described as "pixels per inch" (ppi), though common usage equates "dots" (d) with "pixels", and considering the image alone, it isn't confusing). While, they *are* two different things; in the case of the image, it defines the number of pixels in an inch, and each pixel can only contain one color; in the case of the printer, it *should* describe the ability to place a "dot" of ink, though that isn't always the case. Carry home concept: you cannot get more resolution (detail) out than you put in. Look at a LightJet print and compare it directly to a wet print ... The Océ LightJet® is not an inkjet printer. It is a laser imaging device that outputs to photographic film. So, its output *is* a "wet print". From Océ's site: "No other printer can match the Océ LightJet® 430's combination of speed, quality and affordability. The Océ LightJet® 430 wide format photo laser printer images up to 40 m² (430 ft²) per hour. Even at this speed, the Océ LightJet® 430 does not compromise on quality, maintaining an apparent resolution of 4,000 dpi. The Océ LightJet 430® has won more awards for quality output than any other wide format photo laser printer." There is nothing new about high-resolution laser and PMT devices that write to film. They can be *very* high resolution; I commonly get PMT film recorder output at 15,000 lpi. However, the basic point is getting lost: the original image resolution doesn't change. What you're describing is the ability of an inkjet to more closely emulate the color of a pixel by dithering, but this doesn't affect resolution at all. What is telling is that the inkjet manufacturers stay away from the printing press usage of "lines per inch" (lpi), which is a measure of resolution, just as in photography. So, a line screen of 200 lpi *will* be exactly that on a decent press. If you have a vector line imaged at that resolution, one *can* print a sharp 200 lpi resolution on paper. I have yet to see the inkjet that can do that. Neil |
#594
|
|||
|
|||
why wet prints > 300 dpi MF costs more cuz its much better
In article , Elemental
wrote: On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 17:07:34 -0500, one_of_many wrote: Your confidence in the downsampling built into the printers firmware is rather optomistic. 1440 - 300 is just too much, IMHO. You are confused, or perhaps my writing is not 2x4-in-the-head clear. There is no downsampling involved here. To re-iterate, the image is 300dpi in. The resulting print is 300dpi out. The 1440 ppi output of the printer has no effect on this. The image does not become a 1440 dpi print just because the printer is putting 1440 ppi dots on the paper. Is this clearer? First, there is no such thing as 'DPI' in a digital image until it's laid on paper and measured. And of course, I understand that the rest of your assertion is total nonsense. Is this clear? |
#595
|
|||
|
|||
why wet prints > 300 dpi MF costs more cuz its much better
one_of_many wrote:
First, there is no such thing as 'DPI' in a digital image until it's laid on paper and measured. And of course, I understand that the rest of your assertion is total nonsense. Is this your attempt to look as foolish as can possibly be? ;-) When an image is recorded, there's a limit to the detail in it. That limit is set by both lens, magnification and sensor or film. If, for instance, you record a subject 1 inch wide using a sensor that has 300 sensor elements (let's forget about bayer patterns etc.) the finest detail that can be recorded is no less than 1/300" of an inch in size. Now take the image produced, and print it on a printer that breaks down every one of those 300 image elements into 1,000,000 blobs of ink of assorted colours, and still the finest detail that can be reproduced is no less than 1/300 of an inch in size. When you're not printing 1:1 these image elements are enlarged or reduced in size on paper), yet the finest detail... etc. The number of blobs of ink a printer uses may have an effect on how well every one of those information bearing image elements wil look, but still the finest detail ... etc. Now if the printer was able to reconstruct the detail in the subject not originally recorded because of the nature of the sensor and use those extra blobs to convey these too. But when was the last time (or first time) you saw a printer that would actually see something? Is that clearer? |
#596
|
|||
|
|||
why wet prints > 300 dpi MF costs more cuz its much better
In article ,
"Q.G. de Bakker" wrote: Is that clearer? I would say not,...... more obtuse. -- The joy of a forever Unknown Artist is the mystery and potential of a Blank canvas. This is a provision for the mind's eye. I see the lights go on, but realize of course no one's home. |
#597
|
|||
|
|||
why wet prints > 300 dpi MF costs more cuz its much better
In article , "Q.G. de
Bakker" wrote: one_of_many wrote: First, there is no such thing as 'DPI' in a digital image until it's laid on paper and measured. And of course, I understand that the rest of your assertion is total nonsense. Is this your attempt to look as foolish as can possibly be? ;-) When an image is recorded, there's a limit to the detail in it. That limit is set by both lens, magnification and sensor or film. If, for instance, you record a subject 1 inch wide using a sensor that has 300 sensor elements (let's forget about bayer patterns etc.) the finest detail that can be recorded is no less than 1/300" of an inch in size. Now take the image produced, and print it on a printer that breaks down every one of those 300 image elements into 1,000,000 blobs of ink of assorted colours, and still the finest detail that can be reproduced is no less than 1/300 of an inch in size. When you're not printing 1:1 these image elements are enlarged or reduced in size on paper), yet the finest detail... etc. The number of blobs of ink a printer uses may have an effect on how well every one of those information bearing image elements wil look, but still the finest detail ... etc. Now if the printer was able to reconstruct the detail in the subject not originally recorded because of the nature of the sensor and use those extra blobs to convey these too. But when was the last time (or first time) you saw a printer that would actually see something? Is that clearer? Your explantion simply affirmed what I said. Said another way, "A digital image is pixels and the only concise metric is the pixel count and bit-depth (and sometimes pixel shape). A digitally made print is something else entirely. Assigning 'DPI' to a digital image might be a handy metric, but its meaning depends upon all the factors you mention in your post above, so 'DPI' is, at best, tentative and specific to the output device. |
#598
|
|||
|
|||
why wet prints > 300 dpi MF costs more cuz its much better
On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 11:33:07 +0000, Fil Ament wrote:
In article , "Q.G. de Bakker" wrote: Is that clearer? I would say not,...... more obtuse. I apparently left several assumptions unstated in my original post, which is not a good thing. Also, it seems some people are unable to grasp the simplist concept, which is now out of context. Also, not a good thing. As for me seeing an optical color print, not likely. I had enough of Cibachrome already and won't touch it again. Most of the labs nearby are all digital output, even nearby mail order. Maybe B&W prints will have another chance, if I stop reading here. |
#599
|
|||
|
|||
why wet prints > 300 dpi MF costs more cuz its much better
Bill Hilton posted:
Look at a LightJet print and compare it directly to a wet print ... From: "Neil Gould" The Océ LightJet® is not an inkjet printer. It is a laser imaging device that outputs to photographic film. So, its output *is* a "wet print". Hi Neil, The one I got to work with at Calypso printed on photo paper, not film, specifically Fuji Crystal Archive paper. You're right that it's a "wet print" but I thought we were discussing whether or not a digital file with 300 ppi rez contained enough information to make an excellent print. Since the LJ takes EXACTLY 300 ppi (on the newer Anglicized models) or 304.8 ppi (on the earlier rez 12 metric models like the 5000) I thought it was the perfect example to show that yes, you can get a great print from 300 ppi. So it seems like you are at least coming around to the idea that 300 ppi isn't such a bad number after all? Which is what I was trying to show to Bob. As for the inkjets, the Epson professional series produces output that looks very close to the LightJet. One of the reasons LJ prints dropped from $70 to $30 was because so many pros bought their own Epson 9600 and 7600 models a couple of years ago and LJ print volume dropped off. A pro doing his own prints can afford the $5,000 or $3,000 that the Epsons cost while the LJ was out of range at $150,000. I know you doubt that the Epson 9600 prints (or any inkjet prints) are comparable to LJ prints, but you can get free samples of the same image from WCI (or least you could, if they thought you were a potential customer) and compare them for yourself. To me in a blind shuffle-the-deck and arrange-the-prints-in-order test the LJ on semi-gloss looks very slightly better than the best 9600 print, for example. That's why I have a 4000 on order (prints 17x22" with the same print engine). As another indication of the print quality of the Epsons, Calypso Labs has both a LightJet 5000 (calibrated by Bill Atkinson) and an Epson 9600 ... prints from their LJ cost LESS to the customer than Epson prints, ie, $9 sq/ft from the LJ and $10 sq/ft from the Epson. If the LJ prints were night-and-day better than the Epson prints then why would someone spend more money on the lesser print? http://www.calypsoinc.com/ Bill |
#600
|
|||
|
|||
why wet prints > 300 dpi MF costs more cuz its much better
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Formula for pre-focusing | Steve Yeatts | Large Format Photography Equipment | 9 | June 22nd 04 02:55 AM |
zone system test with filter on lens? | Phil Lamerton | In The Darkroom | 35 | June 4th 04 02:40 AM |